‘SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADUDR, AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY Ms. BRAHMASTRA & Co, vs, SHIVA Shiva, a sixteen-year prodigy, citizen of Indiana was the recipient of the “Semsational Voice of the Nation” award. He was an astounding Singet, extremely talented not only in RapyROCk,) ‘Hip=Hop/and Jazz) but also|in|Classical/and)FOIk. He wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums combining different genres and by engaging himself on world music tours. So, he wanted/al imUlti=purpOSe; Ultra=MOUeTH /arChitecturallaFVEl| where he could have is recording studio, theatre - for live musieal performances and a roof top pool for hosting) parties. He misrepresented himself as a major and put the task out to tender. Mis. Brahmasira & Co, was a leading building GOnsthiGtonland infFaSinielure® provider. They offered to do the entire work for RS{10j00000/-. Both the parties knew that this was an ‘unrealistically low-price contract and the amountiwillibelpaid intinstaliments!in order of the ‘completion of different phases'of the assigned work. Shiva accepted their/offer and entered into a contract for construction of the multi-purpose building and for providing all amenities thefein. According to the contract, the ground floor was for parking, the firstifloot was for the musicitheatre, the Second MoGr was for the recording SWUGIO and the JaS™"MOGE for the FOO|LOp|POGL, M/s. Brahmastra & Co. completed the construction of the ground Moor and first floor aid FanOUNO HORE Vlai materials for further! construction, They informed Shiva that i¢yjeould* WOH completethe|eonstruction unless further capital was made available to thet Shiva had arranged a poolside party to which he had invited fop music directors, producersand_ ther renowned individuals'in theimusie industry whom he believed Would fund for his dream music albums and music tours, So he was G&SHERHE to have the construction ofthe roof top pool completed as stipulated. He had FEqueStEd forthe" Continuanes OF the construction | Work"and) further requested to spend the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on the work out of their own funds and assured them that the money would be paid to them as soon as his album is released,‘SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL NADUDR, AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY 5, The roof top pool was completed and the paifty/WAS/a/ SUCCESS. Shiva entered into a contractwith DeviProducers who agreed to find)foF the /fUSion|albUMs and world tours. Shiva told Ms. Isha, the Manager of M/s. Brahmastra & Co. SMfadainiy you haVesaved imy Career Don’t Worry about, RS7,00/000/2" Having this as a promise, M/s. Brahmastra & Co. started a new project. However, Shiva’s new fusion music album wasa disastrousiflop. Social media enthusiasts and meme pages mas hime] utiable;to "pay, the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to Mi vely trolled him for his raucous and bizarre fusion music. He then found Brahmastra & Co. 6. Ms, Isha compelled Shiva to render a music performance in her daughter's birthday party. Apart from relatives and snds she had also invited rich people, in order to secure contracts ing, construction etc. jd i FERRY SHE agreed TO Telease!Shivalrom|payingite| debISTOF RE700,000/-. Shiva agreed on this point and was ready for the music performan the party. He also wanted to getiback his Tostireputation and startihisteareeriafresh! However before the party, he suffered from a S6¥ereSOre thfGat{@ie\to over=Fepetition OF FeEaFSAS. Then he did not perform in Ms. Isha’s party onlthe advieeToPhisoetor. regarding buil in 7. On Shiva’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties, Of] GFOUNGS/OP Numanitys decided to alter the) contract, Shiva acknowledged the debt taken from M/s. Brahmastra & Co. for rendering past services and further both agreed on the same point that Shiva would pay thedebt through easy monthly installments (EMIs) of RSi20,000/2 péF month till the repayment of the/amount or RS.7,00,000/-. 8. Shiva, later on, felt that the work done by M/s, Brahmastra & Co. was flot/performed’asihe\had) ‘SpeCiFieM! He further pointed out that the MiAIGFANUSEM for constructing was Sub=/standara and ‘HOESGLSTACEOEY. He estimated that this would have costed them RSi3{00,000/2%68ly, He Blaine that he had paid the money already. 9. Shiva then decided to dispose off his property, without paying a single dime to M/s. Brahmastra, &)Coy When all this foul play came to their knowledge, they tried to restrain him by putting enormous pressure in order to recover their money amounting to atotal sum of RSi7,00/000/- which they spent on the Gonstiuction and amenities! Even after such prolonged period and 4ii, ili ScHOOL OF ExcEtLs altered mode of payment, M/s. Brahmastra & Co. cOuld/HOt FecoVer the debt fron/Shiva. As a last resort, they sent him a legal notice, stating that the money/shallibelrepaid within USidays. However, Shiva did not send any correspondence or reply to the said notice. Instead he Posted, an offensive post against M/s. Brahmastra & Co. on his social media having nearly 15,000. followers where he accused them of cheating people with their below par construction work. (CE IN LAW, TAMIL NADUDR, AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSIFY ). In this context, M/s. Brahmastra & Co. finally decided to se@kiremiedyifrom| the! CourfOMEAW in this regard, The suit.was the filed by: M/s..Brahmastra.& Co.,before the Civil. Court of Sardam, in the State of Indiana on the ground that they had constructed the building asiper the terms of the contract and had taker allte Giligent Steps to FECOVERAREIOGH made Available to Shiva for. Rs.7,00,000/- but now he refused to pay the said amount and alleged fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining Shiva fOmniSelingtHEIPTopeMyUNELAHESUit was disposed off: Additionally, they sued, Shiva. for (fin aliOHGstiiSiSta(ehrentron_SOeiaisicdiayhadost them two Huge projects. The Civil Court of Sarcam heard the matter and Heldithat™a vino S|GOERICHS|Woid ab inito and thus set|Shivalifreelifromil@INNhis liabilities towards M/s, Brahmastra & Co. by upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of restitution raised by the Plaintiff was rejetee and TajuMeHOn Was not gFARKEA: Additionally he! COURaIso stated thatthe defamation case against Shiva was liable toybe dismissed M/s. Brahmastra & Co. preferred anappeal before the Bligh|GourtOPSardaim. The High Court ‘granted injunction and decided tovhear the"ease on merits. The following are the issues framed for consideration:SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TAMIL.NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY Note: No other issues can be added. However participants are free to add sub-issues. The principles of supply of ‘necessaries’, frustration of contract, estoppel, ratification and novation may be relied upon. Laws of Indiana are pari materia to laws in India. Cofiiiioi aw ja gnnehts aiid Other Fore jUAMEHTS hold high persuasive value in Indiana. ‘The characters and places appearing in this problem are fictional and used purely for academic purpose only. They do not signify any person, living or dead ~ resemblance to any is purely coincidental. ‘The proposition is predominantly drafted by SOEL Alumni Ms. Rishika Mehta and Aishwarya Lakshmi V.M along with few additions by Ms. Mansi Sethiya, President of MCA 2022-23. Participants shall strictly refrain themselves from contacting the drafters at any cost.